Petition to unban Straha!

[Joe Republic]

I thought Dave did finally ban her after she went nuts with spamming the forum to have her account deleted.

No.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I thought Dave did finally ban her after she went nuts with spamming the forum to have her account deleted.

No.

I thought he did it after that sometime.  Apparently not, and I stand corrected.  Thanks for the link though.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I think the primary points are being missed here:  Straha is being banned for something he 1) did prior to the new rules, and 2) already received punishment for.

It would be different if it was now revealed that he was hacking the forum 3 years ago...but the actions he is being banned for aren't news.

Now, granted, I don't remember Straha, and therefore don't know him from Adam...so I don't really care if he is banned.  But, I find this whole episode rather entertaining in the fact the Mods feel like it is imperative to ban him...even though banning him would create inconsistency of application (in that a statute of limitations in other cases was previously invoked and utilized by the Mods), instead of consistency.

Just another case of the Mods having a chip on their shoulder, and the more we point out the weakness of their case, the bigger the chip gets.  And right now the weight of that chip is becoming very painful to the Mods.

The suspense is terribly entertaining.  I hope it'll last.

 

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

jmfcst, I thought you said you were going to stop trolling.  Have you really given up that resolution already?

Come on, dude, you can disagree with moderation activities, but don't be so condescending when you do it - it makes you look bad.

Also, I love how you're making it sound like the mods are in unison here.  It's as if you've ignored half of this thread.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It is such a buzz kill to have to explain myself, but here goes:

Inks, as I explained to Joe, I am an entertainer.

Allow a little space for method actors.  Besides, we are all political junkies, interested in law, so naturally we are going to invoke our inner lawyer in disputes involving the TOS.

It's not personal, it's just that the script requires we act like it is.

[Simfan34]

Internet forums are ultimately dictatorships of the domain holders. Remember that.

they are ultimately the product of the relations between the users/community and the ownership and its representatives.  Dave (partially) funds the site through contributions by not a few of us, at a most base level.  and beyond that the site's vitality has much to do with the membership; so such a hands-in-the-air fatalism is misplaced.

Fatalism? You should know me better than that by now.

[Torie]

Is there any schedule of punishments between 1) death points 2) mod review, and 3) a permanent ban?

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

     X PiT (The Physicist)

[So the Heroes Fall]

It seems Joe's the only one who wants him banned.

[Senator Sbane]

Think about it this way guys, straha would have been banned anyways. The mods just took a shortcut. Whatever I remember of him (around the 2008 elections) is that he cam across as a giant douche. I empathize with the mods in wanting to pre-emptively take him out.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Straha was actually significantly better behaved than many current posters, and some posters that took forever to ban such as the one referred to as "a certain Bakersfield resident".

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

X Eraserhead

Hopefully he'll be allowed to return and he can tell the mods: "Good, you heeled."

[Paul Kemp]

It seems Joe's the only one who wants him banned.

I concur with the gentleman from Nevada.

[Joe Republic]

It seems Joe's the only one who wants him banned.

In the discussion going on in the Mod board right now, the vote is currently 6-1.

Unfortunately for you, I'm not the 1.

[Diabolical Minds Think Alike]

It seems Joe's the only one who wants him banned.

In the discussion going on in the Mod board right now, the vote is currently 6-1.

Unfortunately for you, I'm not the 1.

6-1 to unban him or keep him banned?

[© Tweed the Younger]

It seems Joe's the only one who wants him banned.

In the discussion going on in the Mod board right now, the vote is currently 6-1.

Unfortunately for you, I'm not the 1.

6-1 to unban him or keep him banned?

really you don't have the reading comp skills to read between the lines?

[Diabolical Minds Think Alike]

It seems Joe's the only one who wants him banned.

In the discussion going on in the Mod board right now, the vote is currently 6-1.

Unfortunately for you, I'm not the 1.

6-1 to unban him or keep him banned?

really you don't have the reading comp skills to read between the lines?

My bad.

[Torie]

Given the unrest, it might be a useful and healing exercise after the mods have made a final decision, to post their findings of fact and conclusions of law as it were, that went into the making of their decision. It may be as simple as well, the current rules are that if you are banned, you are never coming back, and until that rule is changed, it is inappropriate to start cherry picking on the fly. (Yes, I know, Straha was not technically banned, but I assume the mods have made a finding that that was a mere ministerial error.) Or it may be more complex. It is particularly appropriate here, because so few know the poster's prior rap sheet, since they were not here then.

Sorry in advance that my suggestion does entail another chore for the mods. Stuff happens.

[Nym90]

He's been banned for being a troll who had multiple opportunities to reform and made several sock accounts to circumvent his prior mod review.

Yes, his original account was never banned by Dave. However, unless Dave says otherwise, I'm operating on the assumption that this was a mere oversight (since he hadn't attempted to post from that account in quite some time).

I would also note that his postings upon his return did little to support the notion that he had reformed.

If anyone would like to appeal this decision, feel free to email Dave directly and state your case.

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

Given the unrest, it might be a useful and healing exercise after the mods have made a final decision, to post their findings of fact and conclusions of law as it were, that went into the making of their decision.

 Good joke. Everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum. Curtains.

[Sibboleth]

Basically no one who was a mod at the time wants him back. End of. You'd have better luck campaigning for some of the other weirdos who've been banned over the years.

[Vermin Supreme]

X Henry Clay

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Yes, his original account was never banned by Dave. However, unless Dave says otherwise, I'm operating on the assumption that this was a mere oversight

Mere oversight?!  I've never heard a judge use that one.  Though I do love it when I come in here on Monday mornings and find another head in the basket.

Are you sure this ruling wasn't merely an attempt to disagree with his notorious lawyer, who will remain unnamed?

Also, there must be several posters on here who weren't aborted prior to birth due to oversight (but perhaps not mere oversight).  Maybe the Mods could identify such individuals by taking a pool on which posters were unloved by their mothers.  Perhaps, whether or not they were breastfed or merely bottlefed could help in your targeting.

In any case, here is a song dedication to Straha: the late former Atlas poster:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JdfiJ60DNg

[Torie]

Mere ministerial error is a concept well embedded in Anglo Saxon jurisprudence jmfcst.  Trust me.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Mere ministerial error is a concept well embedded in Anglo Saxon jurisprudence jmfcst.  Trust me.

so that's why they used that term?  tricky.  2 points for the Mods.